From The Hill, the understatement of the week: "[S]ome veteran Republicans worry their party could be seen as intransigent."
Note the use of the conditional, which only amplifies the hilarity of the yeomanly euphemism of "intransigent" for sadistic, venomous, and mad as a hatter.
Yet how many "veteran Republicans" are cited? What number of worried and worldly old bulls does The Hill reveal to be brooding about their party's demonic descent?
Two -- one, George Voinovich, is retired from the Senate, and the other, John McCain, recently made a flagellant appearance at the Church of Hannity to renounce his impetuous heresy.
Otherwise, Republican sentiment -- which I can only assume is a prevailing sentiment, given the paucity of outspoken dissidents, not to mention recent events -- persists in the infantile notion that governance is merely a who's up, who's down political game. A former John Boehner and Mitt Romney adviser, for instance, clearly sees the biggest of all essential pictures: "President Obama has the most to lose here because he’s presiding over the chaos." (Insert "tee-hee").
Which ironically brings us to the inescapable argument that Republicans, in this momentary question of political gamesmanship uber alles, are profoundly correct.
In ordinary, responsible and sane times, one would sanely be writing to one's congressman or senator or praying to one's god that such a crisis as this be averted. But this era of Republican "intransigence" is neither ordinary nor responsible nor sane -- indeed, what Republicans have wrought are extraordinary times that call for insanely extraordinary measures: a full-spread national swan dive straight into the roiling economic Styx, after which a spiritually cleansed electorate will most assuredly march to the polls with cathartic dynamite in mind and blow these Tea Partying Radical Rightists straight to hell.
I see no other way but the absolute worst of ridding ourselves of these malignant rodents.